G.R. No. 87148 - Consignado vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioners, spouses Marciana Consignado and Nazario Asendido, filed a complaint in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Nagcarlan, Laguna, on August 8, 1985, under Civil Case No. 608, against private respondent Milagros Matining, assisted by her husband Heracleo Matining.
The complaint alleged that Marciana Consignado is the absolute owner of a parcel of residential land with a house located at 46 Avenida Rizal (Poblacion), Nagcarlan, Laguna, which is her paraphernal property.
Ownership was supported by evidence including Tax Declaration No. 25209 and additional documents dating back to December 31, 1949, as well as hereditary evidence showing that the property originated from her grandfather Bernabe Consignado and was subsequently inherited from her father, Florentino Consignado.

Petitioners claimed that in 1974, out of Christian charity, they allowed defendant (Milagros Matining) to occupy a portion of the property after she pleaded homelessness due to the burning of her house.
It was alleged that the defendant, without consent, removed the kitchen and dining room, causing damages amounting to P5,000.00.
The petitioners had repeatedly demanded that the defendant vacate the property through written demands starting August 31, 1983, with the latest demand issued on April 14, 1985, which was received on April 22, 1985.
Besides ejectment, the petitioners claimed actual damages for the unlawful occupation calculated at P50.00 monthly (totaling P2,300.00 up to July 31, 1985), litigation expenses of P1,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P300.00 per court appearance.
The prayers in the complaint included orders for the defendant to vacate the premises, pay the specified damages, expenses, attorney’s fees, and the cost of suit.

The private respondents (defendants in the original complaint) admitted some allegations but denied material allegations regarding unauthorized actions and damages.
They raised several affirmative defenses and counterclaims, notably asserting that:

The Honorable Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the issue raised involved determining actual ownership title rather than mere possession.
The original ownership of the property was attributed to the late Bernabe Consignado, which was later inherited by Florentino Consignado and then partitioned among his children.
A document titled “Pagpapatibay Ng Kabahagi Sa Samahang Pag-aari” executed on May 12, 1981, indicated that there was collusion among Marciana and her sisters to appropriate the entire 58 square meters of the lot to the exclusion of their brothers.

The claim that the property was originally 86 square meters, with subsequent partition reducing the area to a disputed 58 square meters.
A deed of donation executed on August 27, 1980, by Macario Consignado in favor of defendant Milagros Matining and her husband, which was later used to claim title to a specific portion of the property.
The existence of a verbal partition between Marciana Consignado and Macario Consignado on February 25, 1982, allegedly dividing the property into northern and southern portions, with subsequent actions regarding the removal of the kitchen.

The MTC of Nagcarlan rendered a decision on March 2, 1987, in which the petitioners prevailed; the court ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and pay monthly rental, attorney’s fees, and costs, while dismissing the counterclaim.
The private respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Laguna (Civil Case No. SP-2886), which affirmed the decision of the MTC on May 12, 1988, emphasizing that petitioners’ evidence on ownership was superior for determining rightful possession.
Dissatisfied with the RTC decision, the respondents escalated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for review in CA-G.R. SP No. 14729.
The Court of Appeals, on February 15, 1989, provided partial relief by ruling that:

Spouses Milagros and Heracleo Matining were entitled only to the possession of 11.16 square meters (the southern portion) of the property.
They were ordered to vacate the remaining 17.84 square meters which lawfully pertained to respondents Marciana Consignado and Nazario Asendido and other co-owners, with the additional order to pay fair rental value for the excess area occupied.
No attorney’s fee was awarded to the respondents due to the partial favorable outcome for the petitioners.

On certiorari, petitioners questioned the Court of Appeals’ resolution on the ownership issue, contending errors in treating the matter as one of actual ownership (title) rather than mere possession.

The lower courts (MTC and RTC) rendered decisions despite the issue of title being raised, which under normal circumstances would fall under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of higher courts.
The central matter revolved around whether the courts had jurisdiction to decide both the issues of possession de facto and the title (ownership de jure) since the evidence showed that determination of possession could not be done without addressing the ownership disputes.
The contention also involved whether the deed of donation, though not registered under Section 113 of P.D. 1529, maintained legal efficacy between the parties concerning Macario Consignado’s share, which was allegedly only 11.16 square meters.

Whether the Municipal Trial Court (and subsequently the RTC) had jurisdiction to decide an ejectment case where the issue of ownership (title) of the property was an essential element of the dispute.
Whether it was proper for the lower courts to decide on the merits regarding title and possession concurrently in violation of jurisdictional limits prescribed by law.

Whether the proper issue to be decided was the actual ownership (title) of the disputed property or merely the rights of possession.
Whether the evidence supports that the disputed property should be partitioned as alleged, particularly with reference to the deed of donation executed by Macario Consignado and the subsequent partition between Marciana Consignado and Macario Consignado.

Whether the deed of donation executed on August 27, 1980, conforms to the required formalities under Article 749 of the Civil Code, notwithstanding its non-registration under Section 113, P.D. 1529.
Whether evidentiary issues—such as extrinsic evidence establishing the reservation on the donation—affect the validity and efficacy of the deed with respect to ownership determination.

Whether granting possession of only 11.16 square meters to petitioners and ordering them to vacate the remainder is justified based on the evidence presented during trial.
Whether accountability for fair rental value for the excess area occupied by petitioners should be imposed in view of the partial favorable resolution.